***************************************************************** 06/25/01 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 9.158 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER CONTENTS 1 DOE must study a volcano blast's effect on Yucca 2 Wilson praised for demise of Dounreay 3 Public invited to comment on Yucca 4 Children from Chernobyl in Russia are to have a four-week stay in 5 Canada: Emerging Directions in Regulation 6 Paying for mine cleanups 7 Minister set to KO Dounreay processing 8 Environment groups want speedy rehabilitation of Jabiluka site 9 Long Island physicist said to be top pick for science adviser to Bush 10 Profit meltdown at BNFL 11 Repairs of Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant 4th Unit Over 12 US power needs to give uranium second life 13 NRC to Meet with Entergy to Discuss Safety Performance at 14 NRC to Meet with Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation to 15 Water worries beset nuclear site / U.S. wants to store reactor NUCLEAR WEAPONS CONTENTS 1 House Subcommittee Furthers Cleanup of Threat to Southland's 2 Contaminated Uranium Threat Widens 3 News Article: Nuclear weapons facility safeguarded by secrecy 4 Energy officials say cleanup deadline at risk 5 Study flags radioactive threat 6 Putin renews nuclear arms warning - 7 SRS faces dangerous waste dilemma 06/25/01 8 Board, DOE at odds over scope of advice 9 On public distrust of the government 10 N-issue may take a backseat in Indo-Pak. talks 11 'India, Pak. must reduce n-risks' ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR POWER ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 DOE must study a volcano blast's effect on Yucca Today: June 25, 2001 at 11:06:24 PDT By Mary Manning LAS VEGAS SUN The Energy Department has been ordered to estimate the consequences of a volcanic eruption at a proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. A Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel, which met in Las Vegas on Friday, told the DOE to calculate radiation exposures to the air, ground water and people. The calculations will be by computer models of an eruption through Yucca. If DOE's models show danger to people or the environment from a potential volcanic eruption, that would be another obstacle to the construction of a repository, officials said. The DOE had not planned to study that danger. It was unclear whether the study would delay the DOE's recommendation on Yucca Mountain's suitability to contain the nation's highly radioactive waste. The recommendation to President Bush and Congress is due at the beginning of next year. The new calculations could take weeks or months, officials agreed. Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is the only site being studied to hold 77,000 tons of highly radioactive commercial and defense waste for at least 10,000 years. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission would have to license a repository before it could open. The DOE is charged with determining whether the site is scientifically suitable. and, if approved, the department will oversee the repository's construction and operation. The DOE's research of the site has cost about $7 billion so far. UNLV geoscience professor Eugene Smith told the panel before its vote that new evidence of volcanic activity north and southwest of Yucca Mountain shows that an active field of hot magma has surfaced as recently as 20,000 years ago. The findings show the potential for a volcanic eruption that could disrupt nuclear waste buried inside the mountain in 12,000 containers, Smith said. DOE researchers maintain that volcanic activity near Yucca occurred more than 10 million years ago and that falling ash built the mountain in layers. Chances of a volcano affecting the site are minuscule, they said. "I realize what I am saying is very controversial," Smith said, but he urged the DOE to calculate what would happen to the buried waste if magma flared up through the repository. Although an eruption is unlikely, such a catastrophic event would bring dire consequences, according to Brittain Hill, an NRC consultant and senior research scientist at the Southwest Research Institute in San Antonio. Hill reported to the Geological Society of America meeting in Reno last November that the greatest radiation risk to people for the first 1,000 years after a Yucca repository is sealed would come from a volcanic eruption. The Southwest Research Institute is consulting for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on independent studies of Yucca Mountain. Peter Swift, a scientist with DOE's chief contractor, Bechtel-SAIC, said that during a volcanic eruption most of the ash would drift south of the repository toward an uninhabited area, a point disputed by the NRC panel. Noting wind shifts at Yucca Mountain, NRC reviewers told the DOE to calculate radiation doses from inhaling the hot and radioactive particles, from radiation in ground water and from hot volcanic particles delivering radioactive material to people's skin, even if they were inside their homes. Smith said the latest eruption near Yucca Mountain occurred in Lunar Crater, about 100 miles north, 20,000 years ago. The next was 77,000 years ago at Crater Flat, about 12 to 20 miles west of the site. The volcanic activity in the Southwest could be linked to a chain of mountain-building volcanoes stretching from Mount St. Helens and Mount Rainier in Washington to Southern Nevada, Smith said. Based on 1,000 chemical samples taken from deposits near Yucca Mountain and analyzed at UNLV and the University of Kansas, Smith said all of the volcanic debris is younger than 8.5 million years. He then plotted the known eruptions in the area that showed periodic volcanic activity. The next volcanic eruptions may not occur in the same areas, Smith said. Eruptions are hard to predict because they rarely occur in the same spot twice. Initially, Smith said he did not believe that Yucca Mountain could be in danger of active magma beds. After the recent chemical analyses, he said, "I am slowly coming around to believing in the newer models." A DOE scientist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico disagreed with Smith. Frank Perry said that Yucca Mountain is made of volcanic ash layers that are stable and at the deepest level could be a billion years old. At Lunar Crater, the deposits are not the same as evidence from that eruption is younger, he said. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 2 Wilson praised for demise of Dounreay DOUNREAY's reprocessing role last night appeared certain to be consigned to history as Brian Wilson, energy minister, heads a government review to examine the case for nuclear power stations. Facing tough new targets to reduce Britain's greenhouse gas emissions, Mr Wilson has been charged with the responsibility for considering a new generation of nuclear power stations and more renewable energy sources. It could pave the way for controversial plans to replace Hunterston B with a Hunterston C next to the site near West Kilbride, Ayrshire. But it looks unlikely the government will allow the UK Atomic Energy Authority to reprocess 24.7 tonnes of highly radioactive fuel lying at Dounreay. Officially no decision has been taken, but it is understood the government now favours the cold storage/minimum treatment option promoted by anti-nuclear campaigners who are implacably opposed to reprocessing because it creates bomb grade plutonium, a proliferation threat, and many times the quantity of nuclear waste. The bulk of the fuel came out of Dounreay's own fast reactor programme, but there is also some other material including the controversial consignment, from Georgia. Norway and Denmark have urged the UK not to allow Dounreay to reprocess. The Herald has learned that the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate division of the Health and Safety Executive, which previously favoured reprocessing, now believes that the balance of the argument has tipped towards storage and that this has been influential within DTI. The UKAEA had long advocated reprocessing, as had DTI officials, but it could not proceed without government permission to replace a dissolver at a costing between £40m and £100m. The government decided to put the matter out to consultation last year. Environmental opinion was profoundly concerned that, had the government allowed UKAEA to reprocess, it would only be a matter of time before it would be advocating a return to commercial reprocessing, touting for contracts around the globe. It was always going to be a DTI decision, but the Scottish Executive was also involved. Almost a year ago, Sarah Boyack, then environment minister, decided against reprocessing. She and her ministerial colleague Peter Peacock, had persuaded Donald Dewar against reprocessing, supported by the executive reports that there would be no serious implications for jobs. After Mr Dewar's death, new environment minister Sam Galbraith was asked by Henry McLeish, first minister, to take the matter to the Scottish cabinet, where there was unanimous opposition to reprocessing. In the spring, a month or so before the election was expected, Mr Galbraith met Helen Liddell when she was energy minister at the DTI to discuss the issue. Present at that meeting was Brian Wilson, as minister of state at the Scotland Office. Dounreay's leading critic, Lorraine Mann, last night paid tribute to Mr Wilson who had long been seen as pro-nuclear, for averting what may prove to be the last big battle over Dounreay. "If this is true, it is wonderful news for the Highlands, and Mr Wilson deserves great credit," she said. However, any increase in Britain's nuclear power production is likely to meet bitter opposition from environmentalists across Britain, and particularly in Scotland, which because of its low population density is the most likely site for new reactors. Kevin Dunion, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, warned: "If the government wants to take on the environmental movement over this, it can expect the mother of all campaigns." In Labour's 1997 manifesto,it stated that there was "no economic case for the building of any new nuclear power stations", but under pressure to meet Kyoto targets to reduce the carbon dioxide omissions that cause global warming, this year's manifesto claimed nuclear energy had an "important role" to play in electricity generation. Ministers fear that Britain's diminishing oil and gas resources will leave it dependent on potentially unstable regions like Russia, north Africa, and the Middle East. The energy review, to be launched later today will argue for a more ambitious use of renewable energy sources and new energy taxes. A report prepared for the review predicts that the UK will be forced to import up to 90% of its gas within two decades, while nuclear power, which currently accounts for 25% of energy generated in the UK, will fall to less than a quarter of its current levels in the same period as plants are decommissioned. - June 25th ***************************************************************** 3 Public invited to comment on Yucca Today: June 25, 2001 at 11:17:19 PDT LAS VEGAS SUN Clark County officials are inviting the public to voice their opinions on a proposed high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, at 3 and 6 p.m. on Wednesday. The meeting at the County Government Center, 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, will offer residents a chance to hear about potential consequences of burying 77,000 tons of commercial spent fuel and defense nuclear wastes at the mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. "The Department of Energy's efforts to inform the public have been inadequate," County Commissioner Myrna Williams said. "We feel we have a responsibility to give the residents of Clark County a balanced reporting of facts and provide opportunities for public involvement and input." Public responses received at these meetings will be included as part of the county's final impact report to the Department of Energy, the agency that would be in charge of building and operating a repository for 10,000 years. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 4 Children from Chernobyl in Russia are to have a four-week stay in Teignmouth BBC Online - Devon - News - Sunday 24 June 2001 Reactor Fire: the nuclear accident at Chernobyl in 1986 was the worst atomic disaster in history Ten children from Chernobyl in Russia fly into London today, ahead of a four-week stay in Teignmouth. It's the first time the town has been involved in the project which has seen 20,000 from the region come to Britain since 1990. The small town of Chernobyl was at the centre of the worst nuclear accident in history after a reactor caught fire in April 1986. [Teignmouth] Change of Scenery: the trip to Teignmouth will help the children rebuild their immune systems A huge cloud of radioactive dust escaped and gradually spread across Europe. The area around the reactor is still contaminated and children born in the area have a maximum life expectancy of around 40 years. Charities in Britain have been arranging trips to this country since 1990 but it's the first time children have come to Teignmouth. The children, aged between 11 and 14, will spend a week at a hostel in Kingsteignton before joining their host families. The trip abroad will help rebuild their immune systems and could add up to two years to their life expectancy. ***************************************************************** 5 Canada: Emerging Directions in Regulation CNSC: Media Centre - Speeches [Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission] Notes for a speech by Linda J. Keen President and CEO Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to the CANADIAN NUCLEAR SOCIETY Toronto, Ontario June 11, 2001 Check against delivery Introduction Thank you for inviting me here today to speak at the Canadian Nuclear Society's Annual Conference. This is an excellent opportunity for me to continue my introduction to Canada's nuclear industry and to discuss emerging directions in nuclear regulation in Canada. Since I became President and CEO of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission six months ago, I've met with many industry representatives and other stakeholders as part of building a comprehensive knowledge of nuclear safety and regulatory issues. Today, I would like to discuss some of the things I've learned and talk about my vision for the future of the CNSC. But first, I should talk about the current state of the CNSC and the environment in which it regulates. Canada has a very diverse nuclear industry, covering virtually all peaceful applications of nuclear materials. The CNSC administers approximately 4,500 licences, in every province and territory, covering everything from uranium mining to the medical use of radioactive materials to waste storage. Our mandate is to regulate the use of nuclear energy and materials to protect health, safety, security and the environment and to respect Canada's international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy. For the past year, the CNSC has been governed by new legislation - the Nuclear Safety and Control Act. We just celebrated the first anniversary of the legislation coming into force on May 31st. This has given us the opportunity to reconsider and revitalize the CNSC in terms of our goals, objectives and strategic priorities. With these in mind, I have put together a vision of the CNSC for the next few years. As I stated at the CNA Winter Seminar in March, my goals are threefold: + To make the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission one of the best regulators in the world. [Faire de la Commission canadienne de sûreté nucléaire l'un des meilleurs organismes de réglementation au monde.] + To ensure the highest level of openness and transparency in our organization, and [Atteindre le niveau le plus élevé d'ouverture et de transparence dans notre organisation;] + To make the CNSC a preferred career choice for the best and brightest. [Faire de la CCSN un choix de carrière privilégié pour les gens les plus talentueux.] Making the CNSC one of the Best Regulators in the World In speaking with other nuclear regulators, it is apparent to me that we all face similar tasks. We must prepare for challenges facing the industry and, at the same time, prepare our agencies for other forces of change, both internal and external. The CNSC is currently facing several major forces of change within Canada. These include the deregulation of electricity markets and subsequent emergence of private, foreign-owned licensees such as Bruce Power, and the proposed Act Respecting the Long-Term Management of Nuclear Fuel Waste. Keeping these developments in mind, improving regulatory effectiveness and efficiency is a focus of attention for the CNSC as we continue to implement our new legislation and regulations. Our first priority is to maximize the effectiveness of our regulations. A key element of this is clarity of requirements and expectations. Regulatory clarity has been raised by our stakeholders, and we have already begun to initiate many changes to achieve our goals. For example, we are reviewing our ratings of safety performance. Our aim is to produce clearer and more objective terminology which will be more useful in decision-making and more understandable for all stakeholders. For example, what exactly does it mean when the CNSC currently says a laboratory is "operated in a satisfactory manner?" Does this imply that many improvements are needed, or that no improvements are needed? In addition, we are revamping our compliance program to provide more predictability for licensees, CNSC staff and the public by offering more direction and clarifying expectations. We are also looking at the structure and scheduling of the commission hearing process, with a view to improving efficiency and fostering easier access and understanding for anyone who wishes to participate. Our new legislation also improves the CNSC's ability to reduce overlap and duplication and to harmonize requirements between jurisdictions in Canada. This will lead to greater efficiencies for both the regulator and industry. As we strive to meet these goals, we must also look beyond our borders. Keeping abreast of developments in other markets helps us learn from best practices and be aware of changing attitudes and perceptions. For example, we are monitoring recent developments in the US energy policy as they may have some effect, direct or indirect, on the Canadian nuclear power industry. Beyond monitoring other markets, we are also working with our colleagues in other countries to explore international benchmarks to monitor our performance as regulators. I also believe we need to strive for greater international harmonization of nuclear safety standards, which I know is of great interest to the industry. I attended my first meeting of the International Nuclear Regulators Association earlier this year, and discussed common regulatory challenges and opportunities that we face. Sharing views on best practices and learning from the experience of others is an important part of our commitment to continuous improvement. For example, INRA has created 60 "Concepts Fundamental to the Delivery of Nuclear Safety Regulation." We are reviewing ourselves against these concepts, and identifying areas for improvement. We are also reviewing our research and development function and capacity. This, among other things, will be spearheaded under the direction of our recently appointed Executive Director of Regulatory Affairs, Mr. Mike Taylor. At the same time, I must note, the CNSC's R role is only one very small piece of Canada's entire nuclear R pie. As with safety, the majority of responsibility to perform research and development lies with licensees. We have seen significant reductions in R funding from the industry side over the past few years. This is cause for concern, as a robust R program is essential to maintaining a safe operating envelope. A viable R program is a key element of a healthy safety culture. A healthy safety culture is the primary concern of the CNSC. The facts show that, at least within the power reactor industry, there has been a sharp decline in safety research and development funding. If not addressed, this may ultimately impact on the medium- and long-term safety of the industry. In addition, there is evidence that R funding cuts have resulted in valuable highly-skilled people leaving the nuclear industry for greener pastures. It will not be easy to lure them back. However, there are reasons to be optimistic. I have noted, and applaud the fact that the CANDU Owners Group and its members have already recognized this problem, have studied it and have reported their findings in the "CANDU Research and Development Capability Review." The COG report is a healthy step towards stabilizing the future of Canada's nuclear power R capacity, but it must be acted upon. I challenge licensees to ensure the long term viability of research and development programs and the safety of the nuclear industry. There are no easy solutions to these R issues. There needs to be a cooperative effort from all parties to solve the equation. Together, we have many questions to answer. What is the minimum research capacity needed to maintain a safe operating envelope? How is it determined what regulatory-focused research should be carried out? Do we have a clear strategy for R in Canada? The CNSC is doing its part to answer these questions. In fact, I will be meeting with my international colleagues next week in Paris, at a meeting of the Nuclear Energy Agency of the OECD, to discuss "The Role of Research in a Regulatory Context." In preparation for this workshop, we have completed a review of, and will continue to evaluate, the CNSC's own R program. At the same time, we will be engaging industry to discuss the issue of investment in research and development. We are investigating the R situation because, indeed, there is a minimum R capacity necessary for safety, and achieving the highest safety standards and promoting a safety culture are ‘job one' for the CNSC. While safety remains primarily the responsibility of the licensee, the new Act requires us to be more rigorous and assertive in measuring how licensees fulfill this responsibility. As any of you who have attended recent CNSC hearings are aware, I expect nuclear executives to demonstrate how safety culture is of primary and strategic importance. Licensees must assure us that a healthy culture of safety permeates every aspect of their operations and management. Avant de délivrer un permis, de compléter une inspection ou de mettre en oeuvre son programme de réglementation, la CCSN a l'obligation, envers le public, d'être pleinement convaincue que la sûreté sera maintenue. Je m'attends à ce que les opérations et la structure de gestion des titulaires de permis s'améliorent de façon continue et accélérée. In addition, the CNSC must also ensure Canada's nuclear industry acts within both the spirit and the letter of our international treaty obligations with respect to non-proliferation and security of nuclear materials. To better address this, I have created a new Office of International Affairs, under the direction of Mr. Ken Wagstaff. This responsibility is particularly challenging, given the diversity of Canada's nuclear industry. However, by ensuring that Canada meets its international obligations, we demonstrate to the world our commitment to internationally agreed-upon standards for safety and security. I envision the CNSC becoming one of the best regulators in the world, and I hope I have demonstrated we are acting to achieve this goal. At the same time, our licensees must foster and implement a strong safety culture with the goal of becoming the world's best, and safest, nuclear industry. Openness and Transparency Internationally, Canada is seen as having one of the world's most transparent nuclear regulatory processes. This is something Canadians can be justifiably proud of. But it is an area that needs constant attention because the bar of public expectation is always being raised. Ensuring openness and transparency means we must be accountable, open to scrutiny and actively seek input from all stakeholders on how we can do a better job. We have accelerated production of regulatory documents needed to communicate the CNSC's expectations to licensees, staff, and the public. I am pleased to inform you that in our first year as the CNSC, we published 22 regulatory documents. This compares to 18 over the previous decade. However, we must continue to increase the rate of production while ensuring documents remain of high quality and are fully available for stakeholder input. The CNSC must always operate with the public interest in mind. However, this goal must be balanced with the need for security, personal privacy, corporate confidentiality and our international obligations. As the CNSC strives for improvement, I ask you to note that regulatory transparency cannot occur in a vacuum. There is an increasing onus on the nuclear industry to become more open and transparent. For example, the new Act requires licensees to address public communications when undertaking major projects. Forthright and open public communications and consultation is a factor which must now be considered in licensing matters. This will be an area of work for the CNSC in terms of specifying guidelines for public information programs. Recent experiences with the environmental assessment process and our own hearing process have made it very clear that Canadians want to be fully informed and involved. We - both the regulator and industry - have a duty to meet these expectations. Making the CNSC a Preferred Career Choice Our goals of openness, transparency, and regulatory effectiveness and efficiency can be achieved only if the CNSC is staffed by a motivated and high-calibre team. However, we are confronted with a unique human resources challenge which is shared by other science-based organizations, our licensees and other nuclear regulators. We are confronted with two primary obstacles to our goals for employee retention and recruitment. We are experiencing a high rate of attrition through retirement, and we are not attracting new recruits as successfully as we would like. With a limited pool of potential employees due to the highly technical nature of the field, the industry, regulator and educators are all robbing from each other to fill vacant positions. We must attract, retain and motivate our share of the best and brightest talent on the market. Unfortunately, there is a perception that the nuclear industry has no future. Students do not see a viable career path in the nuclear field, and many universities are downsizing or canceling programs in this area. This problem is growing with each passing year. In order to increase the pool from which we can draw, and to make the CNSC more attractive, we have developed and joined several initiatives to attract new recruits and strengthen nuclear education programs. We have developed a pilot internship program for regulation of power reactors called the Career Challenge. Our first eight interns began a two-year training program on June 4th. Upon completion of the program, interns will be offered a full time position with the CNSC. The CNSC is also working in partnership with academia and industry. As you may be aware, the CNSC is supporting CAN TEACH - a joint initiative of five universities, four utilities, the CANDU Owners Group and AECL. We have are also supporting the Canadian Universities Network of Excellence in Nuclear Engineering. This is an excellent example of the cooperation needed to ensure the survival of nuclear engineering programs. I want the CNSC to be recognized as an employer that offers challenging work, opportunities for career advancement and a continuous learning culture. The CNSC needs to be seen as offering a promising and rewarding career. Conclusion I hope I've demonstrated today that the CNSC has a vision for becoming a "best in class" regulator and that we are taking steps to achieve this goal. A strong regulator is in the best interest of all stakeholders. By having a strong and impartial regulator, industry is afforded more trust and credibility in the public's eye. An effectively regulated industry, and one recognized for its safety culture, is an industry which the public will trust. Comme je l'ai mentionné au tout début, la CCSN est un excellent organisme de réglementation. Pour devenir encore meilleure dans l'avenir, elle devra savoir retenir ses gens, renforcer leurs compétences, attirer de nouveaux employés en leur offrant un lieu de travail dynamique et créatif, et adopter des idées, pratiques et politiques nouvelles qui soient souples sans sacrifier la sûreté, la priorité numéro un. I intend to lead the CNSC in becoming an organization that is progressive and outward looking. In a world of continuous change, we need to know what is going on around us - in the business, regulatory, and environments - to be well-positioned as an effective, efficient and adaptive regulator in the years ahead. Thank you again for inviting me to join you today. © Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 2000 ***************************************************************** 6 Paying for mine cleanups June 24, 2001 The Bush administration has decided wisely to retain a key piece of the stiffer regulations adopted in the last hours of the Clinton presidency to govern mining on public land. The Bureau of Land Management announced last week that it will not throw out the 4-month-old rule that hard-rock (metals) mining companies put up bonds to cover all of the potential cleanup costs of their operations. That partially relieves our fear of environmental disaster from a contemplated Bush rollback to weaker, outdated mining regulations that had been in effect since 1980. Without the overdue bonding requirement, taxpayers could eventually be stuck with up to $1 billion worth of cleanups at current mining sites. Past inattention to the pollution danger has left a litter of more than 500, 000 abandoned mines across the country that will cost taxpayers $32 billion to $72 billion to clean up. The toxic residue from these operations includes arsenic, lead, cyanide and sulfuric acid. The cause of reforming the mess appeared to be threatened by President Bush's policy of second-guessing decisions of his outgoing predecessor in a number of areas. Though the new rules covering extraction of such metals as gold, silver, copper, uranium, lead and zinc were adopted while Clinton literally was moving out of the White House, they had been under exhaustive consideration at the Interior Department for four years. The Bush administration, whose review of the matter is to be completed soon, should preserve other features of the Clinton reform, including more authority to bar mining on sensitive sites, and standards to protect groundwater. The affected industry, doubly subsidized by paying nothing for what it extracts and also enjoying tax breaks, should not be let off the hook for environmental damage as well. ©2001 San Francisco Chronicle   Page C - 6 ***************************************************************** 7 Minister set to KO Dounreay processing Ken Jones Energy Minister Brian Wilson is expected to announce soon a halt to nuclear reprocessing at Dounreay, with waste being stored there above ground instead. The anticipated move, which Government and nuclear agency officials refused to confirm yesterday, will drive a further nail into the plant's coffin. Reactors at Dounreay have been shut down for several years and the plant, which employs 2,000 people, has now embarked on a £4billion, 60-year decommissioning programme. The door had always been left open for reactivation of the plant's nuclear-fuel reprocessing facility. Councillors in Caithness and Highlands and Islands Enterprise favoured waste reprocessing at the plant. But Mr Wilson's decision – expected to be announced soon – will stop any further reprocessing and the 24.7 tonnes of highly radioactive reactor fuel from Dounreay itself will now be made suitable for above-ground storage. Reprocessing involves dissolving and chemically-separating the different materials contained in nuclear waste. The process is thought to pollute the sea and the air with radioactivity and has been fiercely criticised by environmental groups and some other European countries. Anti-nuclear campaigners claim reprocessing would create up to 85 times the volume of radioactive waste that there was at the start. Mr Wilson's anticipated decision arises out of a consultation exercise carried out in April last year by the Department of Trade and Industry over what to do with plutonium fuel from Dounreay's prototype fast reactor programme. The cost of the options ranged from £123million to £178million. Reprocessing would have been split between Sellafield's Thorp plant and Dounreay, or treated on the Caithness site and made suitable for interim storage above ground. The DTI, along with the UK Atomic Energy Authority, backed reprocessing, which was last carried out at Dounreay in 1996. Some experts regard the technique as the best way of dealing with fuel burned in nuclear reactors. Councils throughout the Highlands and Islands, however, called for a public inquiry and set their faces firmly against reprocessing. The Scottish Executive also came out against it, claiming reprocessing was the option that produced the highest pollution. Critics found support abroad, with the environment ministers of Denmark and Norway urging the UK Government not to proceed with reprocessing. However, Caithness councillors, along with Highlands and Islands Enterprise, favoured reprocessing at Dounreay. Enterprise bosses, who commissioned an external consultant to advise the agency, concluded that Dounreay's operational competence to carry out reprocessing had been proven and it was the cheapest option. It said there appeared to be no significant additional environmental penalties and it would not compromise the goal of early decommissioning of Dounreay. Yesterday, a spokesman for the plant said no official decision had been made but the agency would be delighted to go ahead with whatever option was decided. A Scottish Executive spokeswoman said: "Responsibility for reaching a decision on which option to adopt lies with DTI ministers. "The Scottish Executive's interest lies primarily in the implications for environmental protection and for the local economy in Caithness. "The DTI have been made aware of these interests. As consideration of the issues has not been completed, it would not be appropriate to comment further." A spokesman for the DTI dismissed the reports as speculative but said: "The matter is with ministers and an announcement will be made shortly." Caithness councillor William Oag, who worked at the plant for 18 years, said: "I have faith in the Dounreay management, who would not embark on anything which is irresponsible. I would therefore accept their judgment rather than that of Mr Wilson." Caithness Highland councillor Jim Oag said: "Brian Wilson is a man of integrity. He would not make the decision lightly but in doing so obviously knows something we do not know. Until he gives his reasons, I cannot comment." Former Highland councillor Anderson Murray, who worked at the plant for five years, said: "The plant is efficient and I see no harm in reprocessing there. It would produce work for the future and much-needed jobs." However, Lorraine Mann, of Scotland Against Nuclear Dumping, who has been campaigning on nuclear issues since 1983, said: "I am absolutely delighted and so should be Dounreay, which will now be eligible for Government funding to develop new ways of storing spent fuel which will be in demand worldwide." She added: "We know Brian Wilson is one of the few politicians who have a genuine concern for the Highlands and Islands and I think this is another example of him going flat out to support the region. "Over the years Dounreay has been like the undead and – every time you think it has had it – something else pops up. "But I think on this occasion Brian Wilson has finally driven a stake through Dounreay's heart." + Environmental campaigners said yesterday would "fiercely oppose" any Government plans for a new generation of nuclear power plants. Friends of the Earth energy campaigner Mark Johnson said: "The Government should be investing in energy efficiency and ensuring that the vast potential for renewable energy is properly exploited." His comments came after it was reported that an energy review would be launched this week calling for a more ambitious use of renewable energy to help meet Britain's commitments in tackling global warming. ALT="Aberdeens Journals media pack"> ***************************************************************** 8 Environment groups want speedy rehabilitation of Jabiluka site ABC News - 22/06/01 : An alliance of environment groups is calling on the mining company Rio Tinto to speed up the rehabilitation of the Jabiluka uranium mine site now it has ruled out developing the mine for at least 10 years. The Australian Conservation Foundation's Dave Sweeney says stockpiles of ore dug out during construction of the mine decline could potentially leach radiation into Kakadu National Park which surrounds the lease. Mr Sweeney says premature approvals from the Northern Territory and Federal Governments created the problem and they should work with the mining company to restore the area to its original state. "Rio Tinto has come out and said that it does not support the development of Jabiluka in the short-term," he said. "But that does not mean that Jabiluka can sit there as an open radioactive wound in Kakadu until there is some resolution. "The Government has a responsibility to take action, Rio Tinto has a responsibility." © 2000 Australian Broadcasting Corporation ***************************************************************** 9 Long Island physicist said to be top pick for science adviser to Bush By Associated Press, 6/25/2001 16:23 NEW YORK (AP) A Long Island physicist has reportedly emerged as the leading candidate to be President Bush's science adviser. John H. Marburger III, the director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island, was president of the State University of New York at Stony Brook from 1980 to 1994. His possible selection as science adviser was first reported Sunday in Newsday. ''I've certainly been involved in the process and assume it will come to an end quite soon,'' Marburger told Newsday, adding that he would take the post if offered. The science adviser is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and nominees must be confirmed by the Senate. One of the first tasks for the new adviser will be to review the nation's energy efficiency. The adviser also is expected to counsel Bush on stem cell research, the human genome, nuclear weapons, bioterrorism, space, endangered species and the Internet. Marburger, 60, is a Democrat, but says he is not active in politics. ''If there's any subject that should be bipartisan, it's science,'' he told The New York Times. Many scientists have criticized Bush, saying he has been slow to name a science adviser and that he has ignored scientific experts on issues such as global warming and a missile defense system. Marburger told The Times he is aware of that criticism. He did not confirm that he has been chosen for the job, but said the selection process was ''nearing its end.'' Marburger is an applied physicist and an expert on lasers. He received a Ph.D from Stanford University in 1967 and was a physics professor at the University of Southern California in the 1970s. He was chairman of then-Gov. Mario Cuomo's fact-finding panel on the Shoreham nuclear power plant in 1983, according to the Times. ***************************************************************** 10 Profit meltdown at BNFL Guardian Unlimited Observer | Business | Oliver Morgan, industrial correspondent Sunday June 24, 2001 The Observer British Nuclear Fuels will this week report a series of severe operational problems which left it with an operating loss of nearly £200 million last year. Disruptions in reprocessing activities at its Sellafield site in Cumbria, as well as serious difficulties with its first-generation Magnox nuclear power stations, will be blamed for the performance, which is worse than previous estimates. Last year BNFL made an operating profit of £65m, which converted into a £242m loss after exceptionals. This year's underlying operating performance is worse, but is likely to be improved by some exceptional items. However, the total figure will still be in the red. The key problem at Sellafield has been the Thorp reprocessing plant, which had to shut down in April, October and February. Its Wylfa Magnox plant - which generates nearly 40 per cent of BNFL's power - was closed all year. BNFL executives, headed by chairman Hugh Collum, are anxious to meet Energy Minister Brian Wilson to discuss the prospects of a partial privatisation initially scheduled for the end of next year. However, sources close to the BNFL board say it accepts that such a move is a long way off, given the operational problems and uncertainties over BNFL's nuclear liabilities, which could total £34 billion. The news comes as Core, a Cumbrian-based group campaigning for the closure of Sellafield, circulates research to BNFL's customers indicating that it is unlikely to meet deadlines for reprocessing their waste. BNFL has already angered customers from Germany, Japan and elsewhere by pushing back by one year to 2005 the first 10-year tranche of contracts. However, Core argues that bottlenecks at BNFL vitrification facilities, which package highly radioactive liquids, mean that this date could be pushed back to 2012 or 2015. Core says that BNFL must continue to vitrify waste from its Magnox reprocessing plant, which holds up work on Thorp waste. It says it has checked its calculations with the safety regulator, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, where sources have suggested they are broadly correct. A BNFL spokesman said he was unable to comment on the figures. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2001 ***************************************************************** 11 Repairs of Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant 4th Unit Over Welcome to The PMA OnLine Power Report ( June 24, 2001 ) SOSNOVY BOR, Leningrad region, Jun 24, 2001 (Itar-Tass via COMTEX) -- The repairs of the fourth unit of the Leningrad nuclear power plant, which have been on for two years, are over. The unit is being prepared for the start up. The reactor will reach the minimum output on June 25, sources at the power plant told Itar-Tass on Sunday. The unit was shut down for reconstruction in 1999. The works extended the service life of the unit for seven to ten years. If that has not been done, the reactor and other equipment would have to be shut down pretty soon and the Russian northwest would have lacked 1,000 megawatt of electricity. The Leningrad nuclear power plant has four units of the RBMK model with the capacity of 1,000 megawatt each. Three units have been reconstructed. www.powermarketers.com ***************************************************************** 12 US power needs to give uranium second life news.com.au - 25 June 2001 By NIGEL WILSON THE long-term prospects for uranium in Australia have improved with the latest forecast that the US nuclear industry envisages the addition of 50,000 megawatts equivalent of new nuclear capacity by 2020. This is 50 per cent more than the nuclear generating capacity now operating. The US Nuclear Energy Institute said earlier this month that growing energy demand, energy supply shortfalls, the continued environmental imperative and the need for continued economic growth meant there had to be a reassessment of nuclear's role in energy planning. NEI expects the first application for more than 20 years to build a new reactor in the US will be lodged within the next 12 months. While Canada is the world's biggest supplier of uranium, Australia holds more than one third of the known low-cost uranium deposits. The Uranium Information Centre in Melbourne says that production from world uranium mines now supplies only half of the requirements of power utilities. And it forecasts that world mine production will need to expand significantly post-2005 as mines now supply only half of the requirements of power utilities. There are, according to UIC, about 430 reactors world-wide with combined capacity equivalent to 350 gigawatts, requiring 72,000 tonnes of uranium oxide concentrate from mines (or the equivalent from stockpiles or secondary sources) each year. But higher burn of fuel and other efficiencies by reactors is dampening demand for new material, suggesting that uranium demand overall will grow only slightly to 2010. There are only three uranium mines operating in Australia, WMC's Olympic Dam which last year produced 4500 tonnes of uranium oxide, the Rio-controlled Ranger which produced 4437 tonnes, and the new Beverley mine owned by the US nuclear power generation group General Atomics which is gearing to produce about 2000 tonnes this year. Rio earlier this year put the long-contested plan to mine the Jabiluka reserves in the Northern Territory on hold and it has also mothballed plans to develop a mine on the Kintyre deposit in Western Australia. But future developments may depend on the attitude of the ALP if it forms a national government. Former ALP resources spokesman Stephen Smith, while endorsing the party's so-called three mines policy, indicated to the mining industry that if there were new proposals a Labor government would not oppose them. Labor's present federal resources spokesman Martyn Evans said this week the party's policy was quite clear: existing mines would continue and existing contracts would be honoured. Mr Evans, a South Australian MHR and former State health minister, has been part of the nuclear debate for years with both Olympic Dam - the world's biggest uranium deposit - and Beverley, which uses a controversial in situ leaching process, located in remote parts of his state. Mr Evans acknowledged that the increasing focus on greenhouse gas emissions is renewing interest in nuclear power generation. But there needed to be a "life-cycle analysis" to determine whether the costs of constructing nuclear generation offset the carbon dioxide produced by conventional generation fuels. http://www.news.com.au ***************************************************************** 13 NRC to Meet with Entergy to Discuss Safety Performance at Arkansas Nuclear One Region IV -- 2001- 35 - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington TX 76011 No. IV-01-036 June 22, 2001 CONTACT: Breck Henderson Phone: 817-860-8128 Cellular: 817-917-1227 e-mail: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with officials of Arizona Public Service Company on Thursday, June 28, to discuss the results of NRC's annual assessment of safety performance at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near Wintersburg, Arizona. The meeting will be held at 1 p.m. at Estrella Mountain Community College, South Community Room, 3000 North Dysart Road, Avondale, Arizona. The public is invited to observe the meeting. NRC officials will be available after the meeting to answer questions. A letter sent from NRC Region IV to Arizona Public Service, which addresses plant safety performance during the previous year and forms the basis of the meeting discussion, is available from the Region IV Office of Public Affairs or on the NRC web site at: . Current safety performance information for Palo Verde is available on the NRC web site at: . ***************************************************************** 14 NRC to Meet with Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation to Discuss Performance at Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Press Release - Region I - 2001- 42 - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION I 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 No. I-01-042 June 25, 2001 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610)337-5330/ e-mail: dps@nrc.gov Neil A. Sheehan (610)337-5331/e-mail: nas@nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power on Thursday, June 28, to discuss the results of the agency's annual assessment of safety performance at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation, will begin at 10 a.m. at the Vermont Yankee Visitor's Center, at the Governor Hunt House, on Governor Hunt Road, in Vernon, Vt. . NRC officials will be available afterwards to answer questions. The performance period to be discussed is April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001. Overall, the NRC found that the plant operated in a manner that preserved public health and safety and fully met all cornerstone objectives during the period. A letter sent from the NRC Region I office to Vermont Yankee addresses plant performance during the period and will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/OPA/ppr/vermont_eoc2001.pdf. Current performance information for the Vermont Yankee plant is available on the NRC web site at: www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/VY/vy_chart.html. ***************************************************************** 15 Water worries beset nuclear site / U.S. wants to store reactor waste inside Nevada mountain Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer Monday, June 25, 2001 Yucca Mountain, Nevada -- Deep beneath the desert floor, within a long, artificially lighted chamber resembling a BART tunnel, a crowd of helmet-clad visitors huddled over a grayish spot on the floor: a dried water stain. Feeling like Hercule Poirot when he discovers the murder weapon, a suspicious reporter pointed accusingly at the water stain and demanded: What caused that? Was groundwater leaking from overhead rocks? Isn't this chamber -- which may soon become part of the Taj Mahal of dumpsites, a proposed high-tech, $49- plus billion burial site for the world's deadliest nuclear wastes, managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) -- supposed to be dry as a bone? Official representatives from a DOE contractor spent the next several minutes insisting that the water stain had not dribbled from groundwater in overhead rocks. Rather, they explained, it resulted from the condensation of vapor from outside air. Such seemingly mundane questions could decide the fate of the U.S. nuclear industry. It might also affect the environmental future of this spectacular desert landscape, located northwest of the swelling suburbs, all-night casinos, licensed brothels and wedding chapels of Las Vegas. Only months remain before Energy Department scientists expect to advise Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham whether Yucca Mountain is safe enough to become America's nuclear cemetery: the last home for super-hot, murderously radioactive fuel rods discarded by the nation's 104 nuclear reactors. Two decades ago, the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania soured the U.S. nuclear industry's growth prospects. Now, emboldened by the energy crisis in California, President Bush and others advocate building more nuclear power plants as a partial solution. And surprisingly, 59 percent of Californians agree, according to a Field Poll conducted in May. But the nuclear industry's growth is stymied partly by the cost of maintaining discarded nuclear reactor rods at its reactor sites. To date U.S. reactors have accumulated some 42,000 tons of fuel rods. At present, they're stored either in reactor pools or in "dry storage" casks nearby. Regardless of one's personal views on nuclear power, the United States has to put all that spent nuclear fuel somewhere: "Something has to be done with it," says Allen Benson, director of institutional affairs at the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain office in Las Vegas. Oficially, Energy Department experts say they haven't made up their minds how to advise Abraham. But it looks like their recommendation will be favorable, judging by their bubbly optimism during a guided tour of the Yucca Mountain site earlier this month. Even if Bush goes along, Yucca Mountain faces tough going. Since Nevada's Congressional delegation vigorously opposes the repository, its fate is likely to be decided by Congress, including a newly Democrat-controlled Senate. Two decades of study, they say, show that water creeps extremely slowly through the mountain -- so slowly that by the time it reaches the repository, the radioactivity will have decayed to a much safer level. "We have found nothing that would disqualify this as a site," declared one of the two tour guides, mining engineer Jim Niggemeyer, who works for an Energy Department contractor. The proposed repository would cost $49 billion -- or much higher, critics suggest. It would consist of some 50 parallel underground tunnels, containing nickel-alloy chambers within which the fuel rods would rest. Construction of the repository could begin by 2005, assuming it gets the go- ahead. The first nuclear waste shipments could begin by 2010. Designed to hold about 70,000 metric tons of waste, the dumpsite would likely be filled by the year 2035. Afterwards it might be expanded, said mining engineer Patrick A. Rowe, who also works for a DOE contractor. Standing atop the mile-high mountain, Rowe gestured toward the spectacular surrounding landscape: desert hills resembling collapsed layer cakes, cinder cones of (supposedly) extinct volcanoes, basins crawling with tortoises and kangaroo rats, and -- on the horizon -- the snowcapped peak of Mt. Whitney in Southern California. The California border is less than a half-hour drive away. Rowe pointed toward the north, indicating sites where the repository might be expanded if it's filled to capacity. That may be inevitable, he said, given the United States' energy appetite. Nuclear power, he said, has "an incredible future" in the United States -- say, to generate electricity for tomnorrow's electric-powered cars. He also supports research on solar and wind power, but warns they aren't adequate solutions to the nation's energy needs: "I have a ranch that runs off solar and wind, and I know what the costs are." Anti-nuclear activists have opposed the repository for decades. They warn that if it is breached -- by anything from a volcanic eruption to 25th-century gold prospectors to groundwater seepage -- then the result could be an environmental disaster of Hollywood dimensions. Groundwater penetration of the waste repository could bleed its radioactive toxins into the soil, carrying them into the local water table. In worst-case scenarios, they could travel as far as local wells, and over many millenia, maybe even to rivers that snake through the American Southwest. Whether such nightmares could come true turns on a key question: How fast does water travel though the mountain? Given the politically charged nature of the debate, scientists have had trouble reaching consensus on the answer. In two decades of studying Yucca Mountain, Rowe said, "we've never found a single location of (rocks) dripping water ... We have yet to find anything in 20 years (of research) that would show Yucca Mountain is not suitable (for a nuclear repository)." That draws a skeptical laugh from one of the Yucca Mountain site's relentless opponents, Bob Loux, head of the State of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Development. "DOE really doesn't know how much water there is in the mountain, doesn't know where it moves, and how it moves. The whole hydrologic environment is so complex, they can't predict how it will flow with any confidence," Loux says. To meet federal specifications, the dumpsite must remain intact longer than any other complex human artifact -- 10,000 years. That's the same amount of time separating us from the epoch of the wooly mammoths who stomped our ancestors flat. Groundwater typically travels slowly -- about one millimeter a year -- through the rock, Niggemeyer said. To illustrate, he held his arms apart and said: "It goes about that far every 1,000 years." How do Energy Department researchers know this? They've wired the mountain with a dense array of scientific instruments that show water moves at an agonizingly slow pace through the mountain, a mile-high pile of solidified volcanic ash left over from a volcanic eruption 12 to 13 million years ago. However, Niggemeyer adds, water can flow faster through cracks and faults in the mountain. But how fast? That's where the scientific debate turns fierce. Energy Department scientists' self-confidence was badly shaken two years ago, when researchers made a shocking discovery inside one of the Yucca Mountain tunnels: traces of water containing the isotope chlorine-36. The isotope had only one conceivable source: rainwater bearing radioactive debris from nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific Ocean after World War II. How on Earth could the rainwater have then percolated through 1,000 feet of Yucca Mountain rock in less than fifty years? That was much faster than computer models of the mountain allowed. If rainwater really seeps into the mountain that fast, then a future repository might be drenched long before its radioactivity had decayed to a safe level. During the recent tour, Rowe and Niggemeyer said the chlorine-36 study didn't worry them. The original study was conducted by a lab that lacked the right scientific equipment, Niggemeyer said. Thus the result was "probably ... less than great science ... We have never been able to reproduce the original results." Significantly, he and Rowe noted, the mysterious water sample lacked traces of the radioactive substance tritium, which is routinely found in rainwater contaminated by atomic debris. Yet -- paradoxically -- the Energy Department continues to use the chlorine- 36 data in its computer models of Yucca Mountain hydrology. Why bother, if the original data was wrong? "Even though we've refuted it, we won't walk completely away from it. I don't quite understand it," Niggemeyer acknowledged. Soon after the chlorine-36 study was reported, the Energy Department added a major new item to its proposed budget for the Yucca Mountain repository: an $8 billion titanium shield. Like a huge, rectangular umbrella, the shield would rest over the nickel-alloy containers holding the fuel rods. The shield's purpose is to provide extra protection -- "defense in depth," as DOE calls it -- against rainwater sinking through the mountain. The last-minute addition of the titanium shield -- a huge boost in the project cost -- was a coincidence unrelated to the chlorine-36 study, Niggemeyer and Rowe insisted. Loux, however, suspects it isn't a coincidence at all. The addition of the titanium shield, he suggests, reflects the Energy Department's dawning realization that the repository would be much more vulnerable to groundater seepage than it admits. In one case, Loux claims, scientists found several inches of water on the floor of a Yucca Mountain chamber that had been sealed for a while. Loux doesn't hesitate to accuse the Energy Department of playing fast and loose with scientific facts: "It's a lot like how some people do their personal income tax: If at the end they don't like the (amount they must pay), they go back in and alter their amount of charitable contributions." "I'm not saying they're all lying per se. But they have a tendency to represent the facts and data in a way that favors their presentation." E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com. ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARTICLES ***************************************************************** 1 House Subcommittee Furthers Cleanup of Threat to Southland's Water Safety Thursday June 21, 3:45 pm Eastern Time Press Release LOS ANGELES--(BUSINESS WIRE)--June 21, 2001--Moving a 10.5-million-ton mountain of radioactive waste away from the Colorado River at Moab, Utah, came a step closer to reality as a subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives recommended $2 million toward the project in the upcoming fiscal year. The scrap heap left by a bankrupt uranium mill is leaking an estimated 28,000 gallons of radioactive waste per day into the nearby Colorado River, and endangering the future safety of a major source of drinking water for most of urban Southern California's 17 million residents. At the request of Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Los Angeles), the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development of the House Appropriations Committee has recommended $2 million toward the Moab cleanup in its request for fiscal year 2002 funds. The Appropriations Committee is expected to discuss the request Monday, June 25, and the bill is expected to go to the full House shortly thereafter. If supported by the Senate and signed by the president, the bill will provide funds in the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1 for the Department of Energy and Army Corps of Engineers to proceed with moving the 10-story-high mountain of uranium ore scrap. Recently, $1.95 million was included in the supplemental appropriations bill currently under consideration by Congress. That money would fund a study of Moab remediation options during the federal government's current fiscal year. ``It is essential that immediate action be taken to curtail this potential environmental threat to the Colorado River,'' Roybal-Allard said. ``The river is a priceless resource for people in my Congressional district and across Southern California. ``I'm pleased that I was able to work with my colleagues of the Appropriations Committee to secure funding for this project,'' she said, ``and to help ensure the safety of our region's drinking water.'' Phillip J. Pace, chairman of the board of Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the agency that provides approximately 60 percent of the region's drinking water, said, ``Metropolitan Water District has been pressing for this cleanup for years, and we're delighted with Congresswoman Roybal-Allard's support and success. We are greatly appreciative of her efforts.'' The mountain of industrial waste sits as close as 600 feet to the Colorado River, and rain seeping through the pile leaches out radioactive poisons including arsenic, lead and ammonia. While the dump is hundreds of miles upstream of the Lake Havasu intake point for Southern California's Colorado River Aqueduct, and no discernible trend in radioactivity has been determined there, Metropolitan has long been concerned with the future safety of the river. In addition to Congresswoman Roybal-Allard, Representatives Bob Filner (D-San Diego), Grace Napolitano (D-Norwalk), George Miller (D-Vallejo) and Chris Cannon (R-Utah) are among the elected officials who have joined Metropolitan in pressing for a cleanup of the Moab site. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is a cooperative of 26 cities and water agencies serving 17 million people in six counties. The District imports water from the Colorado River and Northern California to supplement local supplies, and helps its members to develop increased water conservation, recycling, storage and other water-management programs. Contact: Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Adan Ortega Jr., 213/217-5786 213/445-9645 (cell) Copyright © 2001 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy ***************************************************************** 2 Contaminated Uranium Threat Widens Today: June 25, 2001 at 3:25:29 PDT ARLINGTON, Va.- Thousands more workers than first thought could face serious health threats from exposure to plutonium and other highly radioactive matter that fouled a large amount of uranium recycled by U.S. nuclear weapons programs, a published report says. From 1952 until 1999, when the shipments ended because of the contamination threat, vast quantities of recycled uranium were shipped worldwide. New government studies, reviewed by USA Today and reported in Monday's editions, found that the recycling program yielded 250,000 tons of tainted uranium, or about twice as much as earlier estimated. The highly radioactive material was handled at about 10 times the number of sites previously revealed and reportedly reached more than 100 federal plants, private manufacturers and universities. "This stuff circulated much more widely than we'd thought," said Robert Alvarez, an official at the Energy Department when the new studies were started in 1999. USA Today said the latest studies suggest that thousands more workers than expected might have unwittingly faced radiation risks beyond those associated with normal uranium. That exposure could significantly increase their odds of developing cancer and other diseases. All contents copyright 2001 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 News Article: Nuclear weapons facility safeguarded by secrecy Kentucky New Era Online -- June 23, 2001 Hopkinsville, Kentucky Armed Marines and military attack dogs protected the perimeter of Clarksville Base where nuclear weapons were hidden in underground tunnels below Fort Campbell during the Cold War. But the real safeguard of the government operation was secrecy. "The people who worked there were not allowed to talk about their jobs," Fort Campbell historian John O'Brien said. The civilian workers at the Navy compound knew that government officials were watching and listening to them even when they left work. A whisper to a neighbor or talk in a bar wouldn't be tolerated. "You had to have top–secret clearance to work there. It was very controlled," O'Brien said. Even today, 36 years after Clarksville Base closed, former workers won't say exactly what they did because they aren't sure what information has been declassified. In 1948 the Air Force established Clarksville Base on 5,000 acres at Fort Campbell. It was surrounded by four fences, including one with high–voltage electricity, and became known as "The Birdcage." Two years later the Navy took over the operation. It was maintained separate from the Army and Fort Campbell until 1965, when it closed. Nuclear weapons were stored in a series of underground tunnels. They were locked behind huge bank–vault doors. Each lock had two combinations, requiring two workers to be present when a door was opened, according to O'Brien. "Everything was very compartmentalized," he said, to ensure that no one person ever knew the full scope of the operation. Some of the weapons required regular modifications. Bomb initiators containing polonium–beryllium, the nuclear reactive material, had to be replaced every 138 days. The initiators were about the size of a test tube and fit into the nuclear capsule. Clarksville Base was one of 13 nuclear storage facilities in the United States during the Cold War. Today, it is the only one left virtually intact. The facility was maintained for storage at Fort Campbell and at one time was used by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (Air Assault). The elite helicopter unit, known as "The Night Stalkers," supports the Delta Force and routinely undertakes classified missions. Copyright © 2000, Kentucky New Era, All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 4 Energy officials say cleanup deadline at risk Evansville Courier &Press - June 24, 2001 By The Associated Press PADUCAH, Ky. — A 2010 deadline to clean the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant will not be met without at least $83 million more in federal aid, Energy Department officials said. Don Seaborg, the Energy Department’s site manager at the plant, said his agency needs at least $158 million during the 2002 fiscal year to meet normal operating expenses and to keep on track to meet the deadline. The Bush administration has recommended only $75.4 million. The comment marked the first time officials with the U.S. Department of Energy publicly acknowledged that cleanup at the plant was in jeopardy, The Paducah Sun reported Friday. The Kentucky Natural Resources Cabinet has threatened legal action if the Energy Department falls behind on an agreed deadline to cleanup the site. Gov. Paul Patton has said a lawsuit would be filed if the funding was not allocated. The plant, which for five decades enriched uranium for nuclear weapons and power plants, has widely contaminated soil, water and plant and animal life on and around the facility. Seaborg said cleanup priorities are made between those areas required in the agreement with the state and those required to meet other state and federal environmental laws. Seaborg also reported that the cleanup cost first estimated at $1 billion over 10 years will increase by at least $500 million. The increase is due to revised estimates on several projects and the cost of meeting the state Environmental Protection Agency’s mandate to remove contaminated material from more than 150 material storage areas. ***************************************************************** 5 Study flags radioactive threat 06/25/2001 - Updated 01:39 PM ET By Peter Eisler, USA TODAY WASHINGTON — Thousands more people than anticipated face health and pollution threats from plutonium and other highly radioactive elements that fouled vast amounts of uranium recycled by the U.S. nuclear weapons program over the past 50 years. Recycled uranium was shipped worldwide from 1952 until 1999, when distribution was halted by revelations of its contamination. VideoNuclear waste threatens some American communities Contaminated uranium sites Military study finds fouled weapons safe Department of Energy: Contaminated uranium reports Archive of complete coverage Now, new federal studies reviewed by USA TODAY show that the program yielded 250,000 tons of tainted uranium — roughly double the estimates of two years ago. The material was handled at about 10 times the number of sites revealed previously, reaching more than 100 federal plants, private manufacturers and universities. The studies suggest that thousands more workers than expected might have unwittingly faced radiation risks beyond those associated with normal uranium, increasing their odds of developing cancer and other ailments. That places an unexpected burden on a soon-to-begin federal program to compensate sick nuclear weapons workers. Contaminants from the tainted uranium also raise the potential for soil and groundwater pollution at some of the newly recognized processing sites. That threatens to complicate cleanup plans. Most recycled uranium went back into nuclear weapons production or was used as fuel for power reactors. But thousands of tons also were used in everything from academic research to the making of armor for Army battle tanks. The vast majority of the material contained only traces of impurities — too little, scientists say, to pose risks beyond those posed by natural uranium, which is mildly radioactive and raises health hazards if inhaled as dust. But some plants handled recycled uranium in ways that concentrated its contaminants, significantly boosting its hazards. "This stuff circulated much more widely than we'd thought," says Robert Alvarez, an official at the Department of Energy when it launched the new studies in 1999. "The problem is, they really don't have reasonable estimates of how much (contamination) was in a lot of this recycled uranium," adds Alvarez, now a scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies. "It could range from very tiny amounts to relatively high levels." Federal researchers conclude in the new studies that contamination generally was "extremely low." But that finding masks problems. The uranium's contaminants apparently were concentrated at a dozen or more previously unrecognized sites, raising pollution and worker health threats. But it's unclear which batches of uranium were most dangerous — or where they went — so not all high-risk sites are identifiable. Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., says, "The government has a responsibility to follow up." © Copyright 2001 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. ***************************************************************** 6 Putin renews nuclear arms warning - June 23, 2001 CNN.com - Putin says U.S defence plans will "disrupt" the balance of power MOSCOW, Russia -- Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeated his threat of a nuclear build-up if the U.S. abandons the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty in favour of President Bush's missile defence plans. World stability has been preserved "thanks to the balance of powers and interests" in the nuclear sphere, Putin told reporters after a meeting with Austrian President Thomas Klestil on Saturday. "We are certain that the elimination of the 1972 ABM treaty and the creation of the Nuclear Missile Defense system by the United States disrupts this balance," he said. He reiterated Russia's position that scrapping the ABM would mean the collapse of the START I and START II treaties limiting nuclear weapons. "This means that all countries, including Russia, will have the right to install multiple warheads carrying nuclear weapons on their missiles," he said. For Russia, he said, installing multiple nuclear warheads on existing missiles "is the cheapest response." Earlier this week, Putin warned that Russia would strengthen its nuclear arsenal if the U.S. developed missile defences that violate the ABM treaty. However, he said on Friday that such a response should not be seen by Washington as a threat. "I want to say that if such a response does take place, it will not be aimed against the creators of the NMD system," he said, adding that "it should not worry anyone." American officials have said the aim of a missile defence system would be to protect against possible attacks by unpredictable nations such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq, not former U.S. Cold War foe Russia. China has praised Russia for taking a stance against the U.S. defence plan. China's state-run Xinhua News Agency reported that Chinese president Jiang Zemin telephoned Putin, during which Putin briefed Jiang about his summit with Bush. ***************************************************************** 7 SRS faces dangerous waste dilemma 06/25/01 062501 metro 12 Jacksonville.com Inside Savannah River Site's massive F-Canyon plant sit about 3,500 gallons of a liquid that is giving the U.S. Department of Energy heartburn. --> Monday, June 25, 2001 Story last updated at 9:48 p.m. on Sunday, June 24, 2001 Radioactive liquid difficult to transport By Brandon Haddock Morris News Service Inside Savannah River Site's massive F-Canyon plant sit about 3,500 gallons of a liquid that is giving the U.S. Department of Energy heartburn. The liquid contains americium and curium, highly radioactive elements that can cause cancer. The federal Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has deemed the solution "a high radiation and contamination hazard." But after seven years and $67 million, the DOE still doesn't know what to do with it. Site officials decided last month to suspend work on a proposed plant to treat the liquid. Instead, scientists and engineers will now determine whether the waste can be transferred from F-Canyon to existing SRS waste tanks, then treated at the site's Defense Waste Processing Facility. The Energy Department once considered the solution to be treasure, not trash. Oak Ridge National Laboratory wanted to use it to manufacture californium for cancer research, and SRS officials began designing a plant, called the "multipurpose processing facility," that would convert the liquid into a solid glass suitable to send to Tennessee. "We couldn't disposition it in any other method except in a way that it could be recovered for future use," said Sachiko McAlhany, an assistant manager for the Energy Department at SRS. But that plan hasn't come together. The facility's sticker price has jumped from $40 million to $129 million, and SRS contractor Westinghouse Savannah River Co. has asked to add $68 million more to that, McAlhany said. Design changes caused the project's completion date to slip from 2002 to 2005. Finally, Oak Ridge said it didn't want the americium/curium solution anymore. No other Energy Department site wanted it either, McAlhany said. Now, site engineers are studying whether they can dilute the americium/curium solution, then treat it with the other SRS wastes in the site's Defense Waste Processing Facility. But the solution's high radioactivity means that more research must be completed before the new method can be attempted, McAlhany said. In particular, engineers must determine whether the solution can be transferred safely through existing pipelines at the site. "It is similar to what is already in the waste tanks," she said. "The issue is that it is so concentrated, and from a radiological standpoint, it's a much larger material. "The issue is how you get something so concentrated from here to there." © The Florida Times-Union ***************************************************************** 8 Board, DOE at odds over scope of advice Amarillo Globe-News: Local News: 06/25/01 Panel wants to offer Pantex suggestions By Jim McBride A citizens board monitoring the Pantex Plant has asked a top general to settle a dispute with Energy Department officials over whether the board can continue providing recommendations on plant operations. Officials from DOE headquarters and the DOE's Amarillo Area Office want the Pantex Plant Citizens Advisory Board to focus on environmental issues. But Pantex board members want to continue providing advice and recommendations to DOE on operational matters. The board, funded by the DOE, has an official newsletter with a mission statement that board members have operated under for several years: "To provide informed recommendations and advice to the DOE concerning the health, safety, environmental and waste management aspects of all past, present and future Pantex activities, including associated costs and benefits." Local DOE officials agreed in 1994 to establish the board, which includes Pantex proponents and critics. At that time, nationwide public concerns about government secrecy were fueled by revelations that DOE's predecessor nuclear weapons agencies performed secret radiation experiments on U.S. civilians. President George Bush's Energy Secretary, Admiral James Watkins, earlier raised concerns about government secrecy in the weapons complex. "I believe the secrecy veil that we put over our department gave rise to questions in the minds of many in the American public that we were hiding things," Watkins said in 1992. "And in some cases, we were. Not so much intentionally, but that's the way it was run." In 1993, Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary revealed that government scientists conducted about 800 radiation tests on humans, some of whom were not told of health risks. The government eventually paid a $4.8 million settlement to victims of a secret program that injected unwitting patients with radioactive plutonium. A year later, the Clinton administration created the Pantex board and others near America's weapons plants to give citizens a public forum. Over the years, the Pantex board has sent recommendations to DOE on various issues, including plutonium storage, hazardous waste cleanups and groundwater concerns. But in May, DOE officials told Pantex board members that the board should restrict its focus to environmental matters. Dan Glenn, manager of the DOE's Amarillo Area Office, said he has encouraged the board to work on groundwater and environmental cleanup topics. "It has spent too much effort on attempting to evaluate plant operations. I feel their contribution will be much more productive in making recommendations on environmental issues," Glenn wrote in a statement. Glenn said he has been unable to find a signed Pantex board charter that allows its members to provide recommendations on operational issues. "We're not trying to stifle the board. We're trying to help them succeed by focusing on really what the charter says they are to focus on," Glenn said. "If anyone can find a signed one that extended that charter to operations I'd be happy to look at it, but no one's come to me to show it yet." Local landowners have credited Glenn with being more open about the plant and airing their groundwater concerns in public meetings. In an interview, Glenn said he is not ruling out discussing operational issues with the Pantex board and will brief members on Pantex's plutonium storage. "I am not ruling it out, but I am stopping sending my staff there to brief them on a monthly basis. That's not the best use of my staff's time," he said. Walt Kelley, a city official who serves as the board's co-chair, co-signed a Pantex board letter last month to Gen. John A. Gordon, asking him to allow Pantex board members to continue making recommendations on Pantex operations. Gordon is the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Kelley said he is concerned about changes in the board's mission. "What I have a problem with is that the board was formed under one set ... of beliefs as to what the board would look at and did so for all these years, and now it's arbitrarily changed," he said. Pantex board Co-Chair Paula Breeding, a frequent plant critic, said she, too, is worried about how the board will function. "We no longer will be allowed to know what is going on out there, which I think is very dangerous," she said. Glenn said he will continue to work with the board and provide information. "We will share what we legally can share. Right now, I'm not getting information that can help me in my decision-making from the Citizens Advisory board," he said. copy; 2001 Amarillo Globe ***************************************************************** 9 On public distrust of the government The Oak Ridger Online - Opinion - Your Views 06/25/01 Oak Ridger Online --> Story last updated at 12:45 p.m. on Monday, June 25, 2001 To The Oak Ridger: A tremendous amount of work has been and is going on in Oak Ridge to understand the historical exposures to the public (i.e., dose reconstruction) and the health impacts from those exposures. Unfortunately, the issue of trust of the government keeps being raised and it is beginning to appear that trust reconstruction is going to be an even more difficult, yet more important, task than dose reconstruction. . . Part of the problem is the government is made up of a large number of individuals all having different ethics, morals, needs, and priorities. While some may try their best to do their jobs in an ethical, upstanding way, there are many who do not, either intentionally or because they feel things are out of their control. While someone might choose to act ethically when acting alone, group dynamics (not to mention pressure from a superior and fear of job loss) often cause ethically questionable behavior. Ethical problems also result from a person's drive to get their own needs met over those of fellow employees, employees in other government departments and agencies, and "the public." ... I think two attitudes in particular -- attitudes with roots in business school and executive training (commonly called "charm school") -- fuel the public's distrust of the government. (1) It seems these programs teach students to leave their ethics and morals at the door when they come to work. For example, they are taught the customer (i.e., the one with the money) is king and they must do what the king says with no questions asked, regardless if it clashes with their personal values. (2) Another serious ethical problem results from the acceptability of lying in business. According to Fortune magazine (Dec. 20, 1999), business people believe that, while lying may not be considered acceptable in their personal lives, a different standard applies when on the job. Lying is generally accepted if it adds to the bottom line. They rationalize lying and other questionable acts by viewing them as gamesmanship, i.e., as in bluffing in a card game. I believe it is these two major ethical issues that have had such a negative effect on the public's trust of large bureaucratic organizations in general... Susan Arnold Kaplan Knoxville All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 10 N-issue may take a backseat in Indo-Pak. talks The Hindu on indiaserver.com : Monday, June 25, 2001 By K.K. Katyal NEW DELHI, JUNE 24. Will the nuclear dialogue and Kashmir be treated separately or not - that is the question. The current public discussion on next month's India-Pakistan summit focuses almost completely on Kashmir - to the exclusion of the key nuclear issue, to cite one instance. There is no denying the importance of this matter to the sub-continent and yet, surprisingly, it has not attracted the requisite attention. It is odd that those in Pakistan who propound - with a set purpose - the nuclear flashpoint theory day in and day out, are not keen on bilateral engagement with India on this matter. The substantive points involved in devising Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) are crucial but so is the procedural dimension. Should the dialogue on nuclear risk reduction be linked with Kashmir or should it be kept separate? If mixed with other matters, it would acquire their complexities as well and become far more intractable. Common sense suggests that it be tackled on its own. And yet a section of the Pakistani establishment is opposed to this approach - and wants it to be linked with Kashmir. What view the Vajpayee-Musharraf summit takes will matter a lot. Will the nuclear CBMs meet the same fate as was the case with the proposals for a no-war pact? It is not hard to know the logic - or illogic - of the votaries of the linkage among the Pakistanis. They see the nuclear arsenal as giving them a leverage in achieving the mission Kashmir, in their efforts to take control of nearly two-thirds of the State, now part of India. They felt handicapped all these years - they could not achieve their goal through the tribal raid or wars (Kargil being the last one) or through diplomatic moves. Their bid to internationalise Kashmir or to secure third-party involvement did not work, while the bilateral dialogue with India did not make headway because of their insistence on their own terms. The nuclear weapons are now seen as a valuable currency of diplomacy - and they would like to use it in support of their case on Kashmir. This is a highly-dangerous game, for it may not be possible to restrict the use of the nuclear issue to diplomatic duels - in the absence of countervailing devices. Nuclear permissiveness in the diplomatic field could well spill over to other areas - with disastrous consequences. There is a case for responsible, mature, realistic approach. The two countries could not afford to treat the nuclear CBMs in the same way, as the no-war pact proposal in the past. In the mid-eighties, they appeared to have ironed out their differences on it (no-war pact, according to Pakistan, a treaty for peace, friendship and non-aggression, according to India). The two Foreign Secretaries, Mr. M.K. Rasgotra and Mr. Niaz Naik, almost celebrated their success at Muree (over soft drink, the use of champagne being forbidden in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan). But there was a last-minute hitch. The main difference was over Islamabad's reluctance to apply the do's and dont's of the no-war pact to Jammu and Kashmir which, according to Pakistan, was not an Indian territory. Some time ago, the two sides agreed to deal with the nuclear matter separately. At Lahore, this approach was formalised. While the two Prime Ministers - Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee and Mr. Nawaz Sharif - signed the main declaration, redefining the bilateral relations, the two Foreign Secretaries - Mr. Raghunath and Mr. Shamshad Ahmad - affixed their signatures to a Memorandum of Understanding on nuclear CBMs. That story, as a Persian saying goes, needs to be narrated every now and then. The MoU referred to the Kashmir issue thus in the preamble - while recalling an earlier agreement: ``Guided by the agreement between their Prime Ministers of 23rd September 1998, that an environment of peace and security is in the supreme national interest of both sides and that resolution of all outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir, is essential for this purpose''. Then followed the operative portion which required the two sides, among other things, 1) to engage in bilateral consultations on security concepts and nuclear doctrines with a view to developing measures for confidence building in the nuclear and conventional fields, aimed at avoidance of conflict, 2) to undertake to provide each other with advance notification in respect of ballistic missile flight tests, 3) to undertake measures to reduce the risks of accidental or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons. They were to stick to their respective unilateral moratorium on test explosions, unless they find their supreme interests jeopardised by extraordinary events. They, thus, agreed to engage in the nuclear dialogue - which was not be influenced by the degree of progress in the resolution of other issues, Kashmir not excluded. Lahore has not lost its validity in the eyes of the present rulers of Pakistan though, soon after the coup in October 1999, it sought to downplay its significance - as evident from the Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdul Sattar's oft-quoted description - ``fallana dhimka'' (this routine one, that routine one). Of late, however, Mr. Sattar and others affirmed their commitments to all the agreements with India. Logically, it means their continuous support to the Lahore approach (as reflected by the separate MoU on nuclear CBMs). However, that was not the sense one gets from the recent signals from Pakistan. General Pervez Musharraf, for instance, regarded the CBMs as mere cosmetic arrangements. At a high-profile track-II meeting in Islamabad in January, the Pakistani participants went out of the way to stress the linkage between the nuclear issue and the Kashmir problem. Nothing happened since to suggest that this was not the latest Pakistani position. The indirect pointers, too, do not show any departure from the linkage. What, for instance, is the meaning of Pakistan's decision not to accept the doctrine of no-first-use of nuclear weapons, even though India unilaterally announced its adherence to it. New Delhi is not opposed to discussion on Kashmir and is keen on a meaningful advance. With this reassurance, Pakistan could well let the nuclear dialogue take its independent course. Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu & indiaserver.com, Inc. ***************************************************************** 11 'India, Pak. must reduce n-risks' The Hindu on indiaserver.com : Monday, June 25, 2001 By Sridhar Krishnaswami WASHINGTON, JUNE 24. India and Pakistan continue to face significant nuclear dangers that mandate prompt negotiation and proper implementation of nuclear risk reduction measures; and the two countries face far greater difficulties in establishing nuclear safety and stability than other states with nuclear weapons, a report of the Stimson Centre says. Messrs Michael Krepon, P.R. Chari, Chris Gagne, Kent Biringer and Ms. Harinder Baweja have contributed to the report. Titled ``The Stability-Instability Paradox: Nuclear Weapons and Brinksmanship in South Asia'', it says India and Pakistan find themselves in the stability-instability paradox - nuclear weapons are supposed to prevent major wars and stabilise relations; but they may also prompt provocations, instability and even conflict at lower levels. ``The stability-instability paradox is marked by wars and near- wars such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Berlin Crisis, the Korean War, clashes between Soviet and Chinese forces along the Ussuri River and the Kargil conflict,'' the Stimson Centre said in a press release. The President Emeritus of the Centre, Mr. Michael Krepon, says that more harrowing experiences are in store for India and Pakistan unless they get serious about cooperative nuclear risk reduction. ``If India and Pakistan are to demonstrate a superior wisdom that resists ever-increasing nuclear capabilities, they must first demonstrate a superior wisdom to reduce nuclear risks.'' Mr. Krepon contends that while none of the conditions of the Cold War experience on nuclear risk reduction is applicable to South Asia - or Southern Asia - yet there are key elements that prevailed then which still appear to be applicable. ``Regional stability and risk reduction in Southern Asia obviously require tacit or formal agreements not to change the territorial status quo in sensitive areas by military means...In Southern Asia, no less than along the inter- German or Korean borders there is an evident need to minimise or avoid dangerous military practices,'' he says. ``The essential question, then, is not whether, but how the key elements of nuclear risk reduction should be best adapted to Southern Asia's unique strategic and political cultures, geography, geopolitics and nascent nuclear and missile programmes.'' It is stressed that nuclear risk reduction will be an extremely complex undertaking in Southern Asia as opposed to what it was between the U.S. and the then Soviet Union. It has been argued that bi-polarity provided a measure of simplification; nuclear balance could be codified in treaties predicated on equality; the understanding of stabilising and de- stabilising activities could be negotiated and the U.S. and the Soviet military planning was not predicated on daily and violent interactions. ``India, Pakistan and China are very far from these stabilising conditions,'' Mr. Krepon says. ``The United States and the Soviet Union were fortunate to manage their competition without the use of nuclear weapons. Perhaps India, Pakistan and China will be similarly lucky but they would be wise not to depend too heavily on faith, good fortune or divine protection. It took Washington and Moscow two decades to pass through a dangerous opening phase of nuclear competition to establish treaty-based and less formal risk reduction arrangements. India, Pakistan and China are now in this difficult passage, but without the key prospect of treaties to curtail regional nuclear dangers,'' is one of Mr. Krepon's conclusions. Copyrights © 2001 The Hindu & indiaserver.com, Inc. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************